The Racists aren’t where the Prof said they’d be

A few months late, but worth posting anyway.

racial-tolerance-map-hk-fix (from Washington Post)

The results are based on the latest “wave” of the World Values Survey, a very interesting project that tracks sociological data across countries – and which I will likely post more about in the future.

Interesting observations:

(1) The West in general is the world’s least “racist”* region – regardless of what some ideologues wish to argue. Regarding the US in particular, even many European countries – widely considered to be more “liberal” – would balk at the affirmative action policies in place there.

(2) France is a curious exception, though not perhaps altogether surprising in light of the popularity of the National Front. A far right party enjoying the support of about a third of the population is, indeed, pretty unique for a developed country. Is it something specific about the French? Or have they just had more opportunities to get fed up with multi-culturalism in general?

(3) Rates of consanguineous marriage (and associated clannishness) all correlate closely with rates of “racism.” Compare the map above with the map below of the rate of consanguineous marriage – considering the inherent vagueness of the questions asked in the WVS, the fact that the territories of the former Caliphate, India, and Indonesia are clearly delineated is nothing short of remarkable.

consanguineous-marriage-islam

(4) Pakistan is a big – and surprising? – exception to the above pattern. What’s the deal with that?

(5) That Japan and East-Central Europe (bar Russia) are as non-”racist” as they appear probably isn’t so much an indicator of widespread tolerance there as the simple absence of significant troublesome racial minorities there.

(6) Russia and China seem about right to me.

* Why the apostrophes? Because how, exactly, is this a valid indication of racism? These polls are just people exercising their natural right of freedom of association, if only in oral form. But it’s still a convenient shorthand.

Comments

  1. India puzzles me. The many social frictions in India are based on ethnicity, language, religion and class, but not what we would recognize as “race.” How did Indians interpret the term “people of another race” in the question?

    • Oh, it doesn’t puzzle me at all. I’ve worked with Indians for more than a decade. They’re super-clannish. So are Jews, of course, and I’m Jewish by ancestry, so I’m really the wrong person to cast a stone in that direction. But it’s an observable fact – Indians are clannish. And they do interpret the American and world-wide racial landscapes in caste-like terms. I’m sure that Pakistan is less clannish/racialist than India, though the difference can’t be as large as that map implies. Islam is officially universalist. That doesn’t mean that all of its adherents are universalist, just that Islam pulls them in that direction. Hinduism is not universalist.

      • thinkingabout it says:

        This is true. Indian castes are highly inbred, almost as much as Jews are. White Americans on the other hand are probably the most outbred people in the world. I hope we can maintain our caste system, it has served us well over thousands of years. We are pretty much the only major culture that has survived both Islamic and European imperialism, even after being militarily defeated by both.

  2. The gap between Japan and South Korea confirms what I’ve been saying about Japanese and Koreans for a long time: Both countries are exteremly xenophobic, as anyone whose been there can attest, but the motives behind it are very different. Korean xenophobia is based on a solid “race theory”; Koreans generally discriminate foreigners on a concious belief that Koreans are a pure race that must be defended. On the other hand, Japanese xenophobia is based on a series of stereotypes and social protocol that isolates people of different ethnicities; most post-war Japanese have no real idea what kind of race they are or even if Japanese is a race.

    Its differences like this that can muddle the data and put two equally racist countries on opposite ends of the scale.

  3. Just Saying says:

    “Koreans are a pure race that must be defended.”

    You wouldn’t know it from their women. They all go after guys who aren’t Asian in any way. If you are Caucasian and smile at them, they want you to meet their parents. I loved Korea, and Japan, and most of the Asian countries for that reason. Their women are awesome.

    Yes, the men were racist bastards in general, but if they want your money, they keep their mouths shut. But in general, I think a lot of it comes from the fact that their women are so easy if you are Gaijin – and that tends to get any man angry. But it just is… Just like American women tend to foam at the mouth if you mention the fact that Asian women are much more feminine then their US counter-parts.

    • “Defense” in this context means a group of related men with a shared identity defending a territory from unrelated men accessing their women. This generally involves border controls, which restricts physical contact between the women and unrelated males. In cases without complete border controls, such as in the American South where despite segregation physical contact was still possible, defense would consist of punitive measures such as physical attacks against the unrelated men who had propositioned the women.

      To the extent that they aren’t prohibiting access to their women, they wouldn’t be defending their group.

  4. This is likely to be skewed by social or cultural conditioning. In the West the majority is taught by moral authorities that racism is bad and that at the least you’re not supposed to believe or say that you don’t like or want to be around people of another race. But clearly there is a divergence between what people in the West “know” they’re supposed to say and believe and what they actually prefer based on behavior such as white flight, self-segregation, etc. This is less the case outside the West.

  5. Europeans and especially Western/NorthWest Europeans are definitely racist or at least have a valid sense of healthy racial idealism and identity. Eastern Europeans and Southern Europeans are even more extreme but Europeans are definitely racist in the biological identity sense. The problem with studies like this is always that there is going to some sot of sample bias and another thing akin to a placebo effect; in this case the effect is that Europeans have been effectively hyper SWPL’ized and the cult of indoctrination and self-delusion is such that they will select anything that proves publicly that they are not “racist” but say the darndest things in the house and in hush hush tones.

    I think Western Europeans/NorthWest Europeans see the rest of the world through effectively a specific lens and mentality which I have effectively figured out and coined, and this may very well describe Liberals of this background as whole, which I call the “Discovery channel mentality”. If you have ever grown up as a child and watched the Discovery channel and the various nature documentaries (in school for me) and even national geographic, there is a particular way and lens at which the narrator looks at the animals and geographic setting that you can notice from the Camera angles. While the animals are moving around and doing what they do, there is a thick English/European “Scientific voice” and prism that is hard to separate from the documentary so you get used to seeing animals from that view and prism. You can see this also in history documentaries or any media that involves Western Euro expansion/exploration of the world/construction of industries and civilizations.

    This lens and mentality basically involves the European narrator as the sole voice and witness of the world, like the Westerner is basically a person that is “surrounded” while being the setter of action motion, and by these foreign entities/objects and events and like and they have to describe these objects (animals/persons/events/movies) like they are some sort “deity” in the universe looking down on these said objects going by like some of natural continuation of the world; OR in the case of history documentaries “the voice” is some of person as a shadow and the events/history in question is like a mini-room in space time and the Western Euro is oblivious to everything else but the room and its objects. As the documentary goes on, the Western Euro’s face is the sole persona of this grand history and seems to transcend this room onto the next chronogical age as the doc goes on. You have to be very intelligent to actually see this and understand this; It’s a sort of a pseudo-condescending zoological way of seeing the world and this is how Western Europeans view non-Euro’s and non-Euro societies.

    The basic definition and description of this is that Euro’s basically see non-Euro’s as props, animals, circus galleries, every day creatures like Birds or squirrels, or as zoological showpieces whom they might have to tame, civilize, talk to in a matter-of-factly attitude, or in some sort of tone that implies that the Western Euro is some knowledgeable esteemed professional curator whom has a mandatory need to lecture and inform non-Euro’s of their ignorance and to the lack of their knowledge and racial inadequacy in the world; it’s a type of tone that implies that the Euro basically is looking at non-Euro’s and their societies in a way which the Euro is above it and knows more about it’s intrinsic value and workings better than the actual members of those societies. It’s also like a librarian/academic having to deal and talk with idiots and morons in a very acceptable and patient manner that doesn’t make them fume/explode which is how Euro’s think when dealing with non-Europeans. So technically this definitely is a form of haughty smart “racism” but its very effective and basically is concealed enough to not warrant uncomfortableness. But even this description is too simplistic: the English accent and class-like behavior/culture best exemplifies what I am talking about, good examples are documentaries narrated by David Attenborough, Stephen Fry, other British narrators to see this type of ethos and prism in action.

    This is how Europeans/SWPL’S/Cheap labor addicted politicians/Liberals/rich “Americans”/Zionist and American Jews/upper class lobbyists of “immigrants” etc etc etc (insert gated community loving ilk of European descent person or of a someone similar stooge class) see non-Europeans. Even Asians/Indians who are successful fall in this prism in the mind of these people; they see them as the Dungeon Dwarf that is working for them in the castle, brewing potions for them and being nothing else. This is the entire idea behind tolerance and the reasoning of Westerners that are “liberal” and want non-Westerners coming to the West. They think that having this sort of world view and a mindset of this sort of presence is enough to put non-Euro’s beneath them and effectively have power over them which is why elite Westerners are so complacent about “diversity” and the presence of “Non-Western people” or “racial aliens”. They think they can simply zone them out by having this sort of prism and not register them on their minds even they are around but they are foolish enough to allow that to happen tbh.

  6. “but worth posting anyway”

    Sorry, but no.

    http://africasacountry.com/the-cartography-of-bullshit/

  7. Slowly, I am beginning to understand what bullshit is.

Trackbacks

  1. […] The West in general is the world’s least “racist”* region – regardless of what some ideologu… […]

  2. Anonymous says:

    […] The Racists aren?t where the Prof said they?d be | Anatoly Karlin […]

Leave a Reply